Return of the Cotton Mill Express

This is getting out of hand now, two members- Rileys Ghost & twr12 have resorted to posting abbreviated swear words which I thought was against forum rules. Mods should remove these posts & warn the posters. Better still, this topic should be locked until there is some "official" news. At the moment it just consists of mud slinging.
Edit, wrote this before I saw Ralph's previous post.

 

73096 also suffered a detached core plug last year with subsequent major cylinder damage.

 

I think this topic should be locked. I've NEVER EVER said that on a forum before. Nothing positive can come from continuing. UNTIL the people in the know can, if they so choose, give some factual information about the damage and the cause of this sad business.:closed_2:

 

Sorry

Two wrongs don't make a right. I will remmber that asterisks are banned just as much as rude words themselves.

Anyway, spies inform me that the middle big end bearing gave up so much that the piston overtravlled far enough to smash one or both of the cylinder covers.

 

Core plugs are nothing to do with modern manufacturing techniques They've been around almost since casting began. Or modern cylinder heads, especially so as we are talking about an 80 year old steam engine here! Many locos have hollow piston heads for lightness and, to create this you need to provide a sand 'core' in the mould. This essentially requires a hole in the hollow casting both to allow the core to be supported and to enable the sand to be removed from the finished casting. The hole is then plugged; hence a core plug.

 

If your going to lock this thread you might as well lock the rest of them. This is how most threads on many forums end up!

 

Detached core plugs and disintegrated big ends are two plausible possibilities. There are others. Neither of them are going to be picked up on an FTR unless it is down to loose bolts/cotters in the big end that existed at the time of the inspection. Whatever the cause, the truth will be almost certainly be known by now.
I personally don't think that people should be prevented from posting such suggestions as core plugs as it is only natural for people to speculate on a cause and sensible discussion ought to be the order of the day. That's one of the main reasons the Forum exists - for discussion. It is when it descends into accusation or claimed fact based on rumour that the problems come.
As an engineer, I'd be interested to hear what it was, just like I want to know the reason for most things. It is when the cause is hushed up that people start to get more curious. It is not going to hurt anyone's reputation if it is a simple mechanical failure but there have been some horrific bodges on some locos out there that people have done their best to cover up.Welded nuts on stripped threads and cutting slots in boiler barrels to fit oversized tubeplates are just two that come to mind. Witness also the 6100 and 4472 threads.
And, no, I'm not suggesting in any way that any of the above is associated with Carnforth or WCRC.

 

It seems to me that only us older guys have ever heard a steam engine with a bad big end knock in steam days the noise they made could be appalling. Years ago I watched 48420 bank a freight out of Pontypool Road on the Vale of Neath line this was the worse I have ever heard you could hear it for miles.
A big end like that would slightly shorten the stroke. Lets all calm down and wait and see what the fitters at Carnforth have to say.
I just hope that the damage is not so severe as to prevent us from seeing this superb loco soon.

Cheers Dave

 

Of course, there is no reason why this tour should not have continued behind 46115. As every good engineman should know, if the front cylinder cover should break and the cylinder is also damaged, the driver must take down the connecting rod, then block the crosshead all the way forward and secure the valve in the mid position and continue on the journey.

All said with tongue in cheek but taken from 'Questions & Answers on the Locomotive Engine' by J H Keighley, 1st Edition, 1936. I have several other books which give similar advice to enginemen. Indeed, such ideas are even suggested in the BR 'Black Book' with the comment that such actions might save the cost of sending for an assisting engine.

 

Good advice. Mind you, the folks at Carnforth have never been the most forthcoming, even when they have good news. I suspect that nothing official will be said in public about Saturday's failure. (Very different from the MHR, for example, where pictures of 73096's broken cylinder appeared on their web site within days.) That's frustrating for those of us in our "arm chairs", but nothing more. I hope that any lessons learnt are shared amongst other loco owners and engineers.

 

One must wonder at how much of the damage could have been avoided if there were the frequency of loops that once existed to run into.

Its a fair long way from Parkside to Eccles loop with a "big hammer" smashing around doing damage

Minutes delay penalties mean that clearing a running line is an important consideration nowadays - so the choice would appear to be between a rock and a hard place.

We are talking about time served railwaymen here who know the game - so - as has already been said - what would the pundits have done if they had to make the on the spot decision?

 

I would like to think that the passengers on the train (many of whom were also on the first run two weeks earlier) will be given an explanation.

 

Putting it all into perspective

Obviously, I cannot speak for ‘46236’ – who I do feel has made some rather unfortunate remarks, indeed particularly so in suggesting that ‘Scots Guardsman’ was “not fit for purpose” … with which I would vehemently disagree, but I would wish to confirm that my own comments were based merely upon information that I had received in good faith, as well as that which I personally observed. (In that respect, I might respectfully contend that most of the many other postings on the thread thus far have been similarly based merely upon conjecture.) Let’s face it guys, ‘National-Preservation’ is little more than a collection of gossip and discussion points that are usually light-hearted in nature, often amusing, always entertaining and should never be taken as libellous … and certainly not taken so seriously in the manner that the proverbial ‘Mr Angry’ (“Victor”) appears to have received them. As has been suggested by so many others, time and time again, if you are likely to be offended with what someone is likely to write, then don’t read it in the first place!!

I have since seen ‘YouTube’ clips of 46115 at various points on the WCML and will also confirm that there appears to be no evidence that the locomotive was being unduly thrashed at any point, nor has anyone else come forward to state that there was any excessive late running – certainly south of Preston. Furthermore, as ‘6.05 Special’ has since advised, the driver appears to have been no other than Albert Seymour – a former 9G Gorton man, a regular "Cotton Mill" driver and one of West Coast’s senior and most experienced footplatemen.

I must also add that those video clips do audibly suggest that nothing mechanical was amiss before Golborne and that the crew would have had no reason to suspect that there might have been. Big-end failures (if, indeed– as suggested by “twr12” - that was what happened) certainly could cause sufficient over-travel to destroy a cylinder cover and to produce the massive steam leak that occurred. By no means a common occurrence in steam days and I personally never witnessed one happening, I have, nevertheless, seen photographs of the disastrous consequences of such incidents … all of which, (like ‘hydraulicing’), could occur in seconds and usually before preventative action could be taken.

On the other hand, it has to be said that engines were often permitted to run for mile upon mile with noticeable big-end knocks, invariably with no disastrous consequences and sustaining relatively little damage in the process. Such is presumably what Mr Seymour would have been hoping for, when that faceless traffic controller at Network Rail appears to have presented him with no option other than get his train off the main line … as soon as possible and by whatever means.

As I believe I concluded in my earlier post (that appears to have caused so much offence … to some), it’s still all mere conjecture and gossip at this stage, and as I also underlined, I certainly wasn't on the footplate! Nevertheless, whatever the extent of the damage turns out to be, it is to be hoped that those at Carnforth feel able to share the results of their post-mortem with other main line operators, if only in order that all can learn from such unfortunate experiences.

 

I would never presume to question those who clearly know more than me in engineering terms, and I would include an experienced main line crew in that. I would guess (and its no more than that) that a WCRC crew would have more involvement than most in the engineering side of their steed, and would also know that if they made a daft decision to proceed at the expense of further serious damage, they'd be having an interesting chat with Mr Smith this morning. That being the case I would suggest that the only reasonable assumption that can be made unless proven otherwise, is that the crew managed the loco properly, the fault occurred in a manner that couldn't have been foreseen before setting out, and that the crew did everything they could to nurse the loco whilst also looking to their employers wider interests in clearing the track. Others are probably better qualified than me to discuss whether at very low speeds the damaged parts might simply hang under gravity and not flail about causing more damage - presumably the crew would have an educated opinion on that and would have factored it into their choice to clear the line.

Probably the only worthwhile thing to say is that I hope the damage is as minimal as possible and that she can be back on duty as soon as possible.

 

Quote 23E
and certainly not taken so seriously in the manner that the proverbial ‘Mr Angry’ (“Victor”) appears to have received them. As has been suggested by so many others, time and time again, if you are likely to be offended with what someone is likely to write, then don’t read it in the first place!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mr. Angry" I've been called many things but that's a first. Not accurate but, if that's how you imagine me, it's OK by me.

:focus: No, I like to think if I say something I can support it with facts. Maybe I don't always succeed, but I try.

Here we get into maybes and problems. IF the driver was Mr.Seymour, IF the owner of the loco. has information passed to him that "it's been said that the driver opened up big style with a sick machine".
IF that were to happen, big trouble COULD be caused.

In a matter like this surely you can see the point I'm trying to get across. Only the crew and I assume Carnforth now, know WHAT happened.

 

That view gets my vote Victor !

 

All please remember this is a public forum, what you say will be read by people inside the industry including targets of some of the comments.

If your making posts ensure they are factual and can be backed up with evidence.

It is highly possible some posters in here may be requested to prove some of their posts and / or justify their comments.

Personally, I would go back, re-read and re-edit their posts where they think they may have got a little carried away, no one wants to get in to trouble for saying the wrong thing.

 

To get back on the straight & narrow, has anyone contacted RTC to see if the Cotton Mill will rise again, and will 46115 make the help for heroes special in 6 weeks time

Neil